I cannot let another naive statement go 'through to the keeper', without giving a reality check, which is based on the 'real world' and not fantasia.
The laws are only of use to those who abide by them.
It is incredibly naive and immature to simply quote the obvious, when we are forever witnessing the total disregard for the law.
Certain people wonder why I abuse them.
It's because I can't believe they will not accept the truth or even the facts.
I have first hand proof of govt's, even local, being corrupt and act in opposition to the laws and rules, only they find ways of making it look as though they are complying, most times by the use of political correctness, sometimes simply by stealth and pure arrogance.
Major departures from laws or by-laws are apparently justified by the words, 'for the greater good'.
Never-the-less something submitted by a company, was approved in direct contravention with the by-laws, but a ratepayer has to comply to the Nth degree or face prosecution and/or a fine.
And so it is that these childish poems and stories which appear to be direct quotes from children's books, must stop and try making real and novel opinions, comments or suggestions which actually tackle the problems being discussed.

Two people prosecuted in Victoria
and Tasmania told the High Court of Australia they had
been denied their right to freedom of political
communication.

The High Court dismissed the appeal saying the laws
served a legitimate purpose. All states and the Northern
Territory also intervened in the case pointing out that
even if the implied freedom had been affected it was
eclipsed by the necessity to protect women seeking a
termination. Three of the judges said the purpose of the
law outweighed any freedom of speech concerns.

The Human Rights Law Centre welcomed the High Court
decision saying it acknowledged the importance of
privacy, safety, and equality in access to Healthcare.

To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty first:
loyalty to Australia. One pledges to share certain
beliefs - democratic beliefs - to respect the rights and
liberties of others and to respect the rule of law.

There is a lot of sense in this pledge. Unless we have
a consensus to abide by its laws, none of us will be able
to enjoy our rights and liberties without being
threatened by others. We have a compact to live under
a democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes. In
doing this the rights and liberties of all are protected.

Those who are outside this compact threaten the rights and
liberties of others. There are countries that apply religious
law - Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person
wants to live under religious law these are the countries
where they might feel at ease. But not in Australia.

A person who does not acknowledge the supremacy of civil
law laid down by democratic processes cannot truthfully
take the pledge of allegiance.
As such they do not meet the pre-condition for citizenship.

YAAAY, Finally, success, we have consensus.
I can now, sit back and feel there is hope in promoting the truth.
I am heartened to finally see one of the disbelievers accepting a very uncomfortable reality.
This is a first step, but a very important one, as it shows that the truth will always win, in the end.
I hope this trend will continue, as the truth must never be perverted or distorted, especially by vial things like PC.
The truth must ALWAYS be told.

Hi Jim Dowling,

I like it when the authors of articles are willing to respond to the comments on their articles, some do, whilst many don't.

I found some articles to get more of a background on the situation.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/inquirer/kathleen-clubb-defends-right-to-challenge-abortion/news-story/614b0a5a9593502d6d040f20606674fe

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/08/abor-a20.html

"There are also many stories of women changing their minds after being offered help by pro-lifers."

Sure, this is a reasonable argument that holds merit, but you're not seeing the bigger picture.

It's ethically wrong for you to impose YOUR beliefs on someone who ALREADY has to make that difficult decision for themselves;
- And live with that decision whatever it may be -

If I'd have told my friend what I believed they should do, then I'd be imparting my beliefs onto them;
- With the DANGER being that I might influence THEIR choice with MY beliefs -
They may listen to me and it turns out to be the right choice.
They may listen to me and it turns out to be the wrong choice.
They shouldn't listen to me AT ALL in the first place, it's not for me to influence their choice;
It's them that has to make that decision, it's them that has to live with that decision.

After reading the kinds of things the people you seem to be associated with having done I'm not even sure I support your right to protest anymore.
I support your right to 'advocate' to the greater community your opinions and stance on abortion.
I DO NOT SUPPORT any right you think you may have to influence an individual who has to make the best decision for herself and her life.
I understand that preventing you from protesting abortion clinics also prevents you from protesting abortionists.

But I think a womans right to make her own decisions free from direct influence outweighs any right you may have to protest the people and place associated with the practice of it.

[Cont.] I support Kathy Clubb being thrown in jail and her own children placed in care for the duration of her incarceration if her ex-husband is unable to look after them. It seems that a fine was not enough of a deterrent to prevent her unethical behavior, she knew what she was doing was against the law and she did it anyway, and also I suspect that any fine she had to pay would have come from taxpayers anyway if she isn't working, which is unlikely if she is raising and homeschooling 7 kids on her own.

I don't care what it costs, JAIL HER.

I support the High courts decision.
I do not believe this is genuinely about free speech, nor about the right to protest.
After reading more into the facts I think this is about you and those you associate with wanting to use 'whatever means necessary';
An 'end's justifies the means' attitude;
- To justify your need to do something about a practice you disagree with.

And using 'whatever means necessary' also means using making an issue of the right to free speech and right to protest as a path to continue the type of unethical behaviour that has not likely achieved anything tangible anyway.

So what you made women feel guilty.
What do you want them to do kill themselves?
You probably do, but do you realise that would kill an unborn child too?

I understand you are standing up for the rights of the unborn.
I understand that you may consider the deaths of these unborn kids 'murder' and wish to hold people accountable.
I ask what is the most realistic outcome you hope to achieve?

I'm not sure you have any realistic outcome in mind, and I don't think you are in any way going to achieve it in the manner you're putting your efforts into it.

[Cont.]
And finally, on a completely separate note;
I cannot but emphasise my disgust in your willingness to damage and deface an ANZAC war memorial, and I think you should be ashamed for trying to reach out to the Australian community on this present issue during ANZAC commemorations.

- SHAME ON YOU -

There's a right way and a wrong way to go about doing things.
Let me tell you something.

Religion holds NO MORAL AUTHORITY over ETHICS IN ITS OWN RIGHT.
End's DON'T justify the means.

- There's no excuse for bad or unethical behavior -